Datasets:

---

AlignmentResearch

/

IMDB

like 0

Follow

FAR AI 20

[ "Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode. <br /><br />Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.<br /><br />Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here. <br /><br />And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).<br /><br />And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.<br /><br />And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.<br /><br />Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember \"The One\"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.<br /><br />Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while." ]

[ "I think this still is the best routine. There are some others, like Rock's \"bring the pain\", and Allen's \"Men are Pigs\" that are hilarious; \"Damon Waynes last stand\" is also funny in a tearful way - but this routine has no errors. All the jokes are funny, and the time limit of 70 minutes is perfect. Just long enough to last 20 years. I just love how he allows the audience to be totally themselves and unrestricted. I'm a fan of the classics and for a guy who watched a lot of of Jim Carrey growing up, watching a more laid back comic is pretty cool. Not putting in a category with Ellen and Newhart, but something you can watch if you're bloated. Thanks Eddie, god bless." ]

[ "As a cinema fan White Noise was an utter disappointment, as a filmmaker the cinematography was pretty good, nicely lit, good camera work, reasonable direction. But as a film it just seamed as predictable as all the other 'so called' horror movies that the market has recently been flooded with. Although it did have a little bit of the 'chill factor' the whole concept of the E.V.O (Electronic Voice Phenomena) did'not seem believable. This movie did not explain the reasonings for certain occurrences but went ahead with them. The acting was far from mind blowing the main character portrayed no emotion, like many recent thriller/horror movies.<br /><br />Definitely not a movie I will be buying on DVD and would not recommend anyone rushes out to see it." ]

[ "Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian \"sword and sorcery\" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)…it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier \"giallo\" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least – seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bow…so much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next – and thankfully unfilmed – adventure!" ]

[ "This is the kind of movie the US doesn't make. It's why people rent foreign films. It's a great story about how one person, even if he is retarded can make a person find reason in an empty life. Everybody can learn from Georges. It also shows how people that are mentally challenged suffer in their life and shows them in a very realistic way (I think). As its classic in foreign films this movie has a bittersweet ending, but that only makes it a better movie." ]

[ "This movie is goofy as hell! I think it was written as a serious film, but then when it came time to film, Michael Cooney said \"Hey, let's throw in some humor and spice it up!\" The characters are actually slightly developed, too. Oh, and the death sequences are the best. One thing I hate, though, was the hairdryer-weapons. What was that all about?" ]

[ "\"Kalifornia\" is a good Hollywoodish odyssey of suspense and terror which tells of two couples who drive cross-country to California to share the cost of gas: A pair of losers (Lewis & Pitt) and two wannabee artists, a photographer and a writer (Duchovny & Forbes). Pitt \"nails\" his character which is the focus of this somewhat predictable thriller. A good watch for those into psycho-killer flix." ]

[ "I have seen this film numerous times and for the life of me, I cannot understand why some people compare this to BABE. This film is not about the secret life of ALL animals who secretly can talk. Instead, it is about a Parrot who learns to talk to help his owner, a little girl with a serious stammer, overcome her speech impediment only to be separated from her in a heart-wrenching scene early on. Then the great journey begins. Paulie the Parrot sets out to try and find his one great friend, Marie.<br /><br />Along the way, he meets several wonderful people and numerous nasty people. He falls in love with a girl parrot and loses her. He gets conned into a life of crime and then captured by a bad scientist who wants to exploit him.<br /><br />He recounts his tale to a sympathetic Janitor in the Lab who agrees to help him escape and find his beloved Marie.<br /><br />Tony Shaloub shines as the kindly Janitor who has an open mind and big heart and who determines to help little Paulie despite the risks. Jay Mohr plays the voice of the Parrot AND one of the seedy characters he comes across.<br /><br />There is a little suggestive language but this film is appropriate for most kids and even more so if the parents join in on the fun and watch too. It is a witty, clever, epic animal-adventure story and ultimately a great love story about a Bird and his little girl. He search for Marie ends with a quite an unexpected surprise for most people who don;t know much about Parrots.<br /><br />Kids who have seen the wild Green Parrot Tribes in Los Angeles and Pasadena will especially benefit from seeing this film and understanding that Birds, especially Parrots are not disposable pets. All children everywhere, will see that Pets form deep attachments themselves and that the love and loyalty of a dog or parrot is a gift to be treasured.<br /><br />so no BABE here, more of an incredible journey with a twist.<br /><br />Enjoy and try no to tear up during the sad parts." ]

[ "All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.<br /><br />In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.<br /><br />W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the \"Black Maria\" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.<br /><br />During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.<br /><br />The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.<br /><br />With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.<br /><br />The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the \"fairground barker\" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.<br /><br />And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public." ]

[ "Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003... <br /><br />To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.<br /><br />No stars." ]

[ "I did not have too much interest in watching The Flock.Andrew Lau co-directed the masterpiece trilogy of Infernal Affairs but he had been fired from The Flock and he had been replaced by an emergency director called Niels Mueller.I had the feeling that Lau had made a good film but it had not satisfied the study,so they fired him and hired another director.This usually does not work well (let's remember The Invasion).But The Flock resulted to be better than what I expected.It's not a great film but it's an interesting and entertaining thriller.The character development is very well done and I could know the characters very well.Also,the relationship between the two main characters is natural and credible.Richard Gere and Claire Danes bring competent performances.Now,let's go to the negative points.One element which really bothered me (there was a moment in which it irritated me) was the excess of edition tricks to give the movie more \"attitude\" and style.That tricks feel out of place and their presence is arbitrary.Plus,I think the film should have been more ambitious.In spite of that,I recommend The Flock as a good thriller.It's not memorable at all,but it's entertaining." ]

[ "Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break." ]

[ "After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE." ]

[ "Another case of a decent DVD case betraying the shot-on-video quality of the film. <br /><br />It wasn't that bad. Rochon does a serviceable job and Damn! the cast is good looking. I've never seen that many musclebound guys hang out together on a regular basis. This movie really wanted to make you think Rochon was the killer, but it was not to be. My biggest problem with the film was that by the end, I didn't much care who was the killer, and the real killer made little sense, since it was out of the blue and the filmmakers were thinking 'ha, betcha didn't see that one coming, sucker!'. Yeah, there were continuity errors about (mainly with ms. Rochon's ever-changing wardrobe), but for an indie slasher it's not that bad. I was pretty sure at the beginning it was just a thinly veiled excuse for girls to go topless, but that was just a gimmick. The dialog was overly think and painful at times.<br /><br />Just don't have high expectations going into this, and it won't be that bad. And Lloyd Kaufman's cameo is wonderfully understated." ]

[ "Many mystery stories follow the standard whodunit path: murder most foul, gathering of clues, gaggle of possible perps, sprinkling of red herrings, and inevitable showdown between clever evildoer and even more clever crime solver.<br /><br />\"Forgotten\" abandons the well-trod and gives us complex characters who may or may not have committed terrible acts. The fact that at the end of three episodes we have no easy answers and no neatly-tied package might frustrate some, but for me it was the indication of an intelligently crafted tale which probes, disturbs, and haunts with the question: What does an evil person look like?<br /><br />Excellent acting and production combine to make a mystery not easily... forgotten." ]

[ "This is an amazing film, both for the incredibly energy evoked from the frenetic flamenco dancing, and from the unique way that the filmmakers interweave the story of the stage production with the lives of the characters preparing for it. Spellbinding is the only word I can use to describe the experience. This is not 'Bizet's Carmen' by any usual standard. This is not a usual film by any standard. Every nuanced glance, every stomp of the foot, every piece of the music is intertwined so captivatingly that you can't take your eyes off the screen. You don't need to love opera or flamenco(I don't)to be captured, enraptured, enthralled by this film. Subtle and direct; loud and still; One of, if not the best, movies of it's kind, because there are so few like it." ]

[ "The film starts with a voice over telling the audience where they are, and who the characters are. And that is the moment i started to dislike the movie. With all the endless possibilities any film director have in hand, i really find it a very easy and cheap solution to express the situation with a voice over telling everything. I actually believe voice overs are betrayals to the film making concept.<br /><br />I hate to hear from a voice over saying where we are, which date we are at, and especially what the characters feel and think. I believe that a director has to find a visual way to transmit the feelings and the thoughts of the characters to the audience. <br /><br />But after the bad influencing intro, a very striking movie begins and keeps going for a fairly long enough time. The lives of a middle class family and all the members individually are depicted in a perfect realistic way. I think the director has a talent for capturing real life situations. For example, a father who has to make his private calls from the bathroom might seem abnormal at first, but life itself leads us some situations which might seem abnormal but also very normal as well. I think the director is a very good observer about real life.<br /><br />But that is it. After a while the realism in the movie begins to sacrifice the story-telling. I really felt like I'm having a big headache because of the non-stop talking characters. It was as if the actors and actresses were given the subject and were allowed to improvise the dialogs. It is realistic really, but characters always asking \"really, is that so\" etc. to each other, or characters saying \"no\" or \"are you listening to me,\" ten times when saying it only once is just enough causes me to have a headache.<br /><br />I also think the play practicing and book reading scenes are more then they should be. I understand that the play and the book in the movie are very much related to the plot, but i think the director has missed the point where he should stop showing these scenes." ]

[ "I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.<br /><br />You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.<br /><br />I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better." ]

[ "this movie is the best movie ever it has a lot of live action It's just great everyone should watch it and the actor are great the location is Rome Italy thats the best place ever the actors are great Mary-Kate Olsen is such a great actress she plays Charlie and thats a great character and Ashley Olsen play Leila and thats a great character to love When in Rome love it." ]

[ "I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the \"mild\").<br /><br />The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.<br /><br />In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call." ]

[ "The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.<br /><br />Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis." ]

[ "So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character \"likes the sound of his voice\", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, \"If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them.\"<br /><br />The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as \"revolutionary\" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. <br /><br />The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...<br /><br />It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.<br /><br />And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day." ]

[ "A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.<br /><br />The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father \"Don't touch me, you f***!\". Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason! <br /><br />One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the \"still water\" below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.<br /><br />To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.<br /><br />I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career?" ]

[ "I saw this movie as a kid on Creature Feature when I lived in New York. It was a pretty creepy movie, though not as good as Horror Hotel. I just bought this movie on DVD, and it is different from what I remember because in the DVD that I bought there are several scenes where the actors speak in French and/or Italian and no subtitles are provided. Then the other actors respond in English to what was being said. Kind of weird. Also on the DVD box, the names of some of the actors are spelled differently than on IMDb.<br /><br />Aside from that, this movie is different in that the character of Elsie takes her clothes off and provides a nude shot in one scene and in another scene Julia tries to force Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) to make out with her by pushing her down on the bed and kissing her while Steele resists. That scene existed in the TV version, but it was very edited. I wonder if there is any extra footage that could be incorporated into a remastered ultra-edition? It seems sad that some of these old low budget classics have been spliced to bits and sold in all kinds of edited versions. Where are the master tapes and all the unused footage? <br /><br />Aside from the first boring twenty minutes before Allen is delivered to the Castle, the rest of the movie is pretty good. There aren't too many special effects (but Herbert's face after Julia clubs him is a good one). The creepy atmosphere and the strange, exotic, and seductive look of Barbara Steele make the movie a lot better than it should be. I can honestly say that if Barbara Steele had not been in this film, it would be a big zero. She makes the movie a ten!" ]

[ "Ok, so it borrows a little from \"It's a Wonderful Life\", but that was 44 years prior to this film, so why not a new attempt. Belushi is having a rotten 35th birthday. He didn't get his Wheaties, his coffee, and has lost his job. The capper is when his self described \"big blue piece of sh**\" car breaks down at the end of the day. He heads into an empty bar to call for a tow. While waiting, he's recognized by the bartender (Caine) as the kid who lost the town's championship baseball game 20 years earlier. This gets him to thinking how life would've been if he had won the game. He finds out when, unbeknownst to him, Caine serves up a motion potion in a glass that gives him a mansion, the prom queen (Russo) as his wife, and makes him president of the sporting goods company he's been canned from. Caine later reveals himself as the one who's responsible for this change, but Belushi is not entirely on board. He never fully adjusts, and in a plot development that doesn't kill the movie but is still odd, he tries to court his wife (Hamilton) from his real life, who is now married to someone else. The good move is that they don't spend too much time on it, as basically they rip of \"Ghost\", with Belushi constantly telling Hamilton things only she could know. It also brings in a hokey dramatic element, as two of his lovers kevetch in the shadows, new wife Russo, and his unbalanced lover Cox. But the keys to the film are the somewhat lengthy beginning, and cheery end. Also good work from the big and recognizable cast, as Belushi is very likable, VERY attractive ladies chosen, and Caine is perfectly easy going as the title guy. Strange that this was Belushi's second film of 1990 dealing with him getting an alternative lifestyle of riches, which was found in \"Taking Care of Business\". Though similar, both films are on the same level of laughs provided. So check this out for a fun exploration of \"what if?\"" ]

[ "The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, \"Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?\"<br /><br />Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine \"Kind Hearts and Coronets\" and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.<br /><br />The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies." ]

[ "The one of the most remarkable sci-fi movies of the millennium. Not only a movie but an incredible future vision, this movie establishes a new standard of s/f movies. hail and kill!" ]

[ "Bill Paxton stars in and directs this highly original film. Having watched the first time I was by how good it was. The reviews I had heard were OK . As a result I was expecting an average thriller at most .However because of Paxtons excellent directing and acting the film is well worth watching , especially if you are a horror film fanatic.The film is also helped by the plot twists which keep coming until the closing credits . The films strongest point is the storyline which I have to say is highly original and is like I have ever seen before. Well done also to the 2 young leads which perfectly convey the emotions if these confused boys. I give this film 9/10 and I highly recommend that everyone catches it." ]

[ "I saw this film last night at a special movie theater showing in Nürnberg, and it was superb. I do have to admit that the original music composition of the cello player and percussion/xylophone player influenced the mood of the film, but the film itself also had force in its portrayal of the tragic Nibelungen saga.<br /><br />If you are interested in silent films or in the Nibelungenlied, I highly recommend this film. The costumes were fantastic and creative, the sets were opulent and exotic, and the acting was dramatic and breathtaking (as is typical of silent film \"tragedies\") Unfortunately, I have not seen the first part of this film duo that concerns Siegfried. The story of this second film begins after Siegfried's death, when Kremhild (Gudrun in the Norse versions of the story) begins to plan her revenge against her brothers.<br /><br />Also, I watched this film in German; I am a native English speaker and have a basic German knowledge. It was difficult to read the ?subtitles (what do you call that in silent films?) at first because of the old style German script, so I advise that if you watch it in German that you make sure you can differentiate your \"k's\", \"f's\", and \"s's\" in the old script. :)" ]

[ "This movie wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a \"potboiler\".<br /><br />Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.<br /><br />There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.<br /><br />Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.<br /><br />Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved." ]

[ "LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and \"journalist\" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming." ]

[ "Albuquerque is a film that has all the elements of a class A western, except one: the story, that really belongs to a class B or C. That was acceptable at the time the film was made, when people were so thrilled to see a western in color, but nowadays it just looks very primitive. Nonetheless for people who enjoy old westerns, it is entertaining, the original color and sound are very well kept on the DVD that recently came out. Gabby Hayes is a good sidekick, Lon Chaney is mean as always, and Randolph Scott a bit more cheerful than usual. In a film named Albuquerque you would expect to see something that would remind you of the city, but the town that is shown here could be just anywhere." ]

[ "Thunderbirds (2004) <br /><br />Director: Jonathan Frakes <br /><br />Starring: Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Brady Corbet <br /><br />5…4…3…2…1! Thunderbirds are GO! <br /><br />And so began Thunderbirds, a childhood favorite of mine. When I heard that they were going to make a Thunderbirds movie, I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to see Thunderbird 2 roar in to save people, while Thunderbird 4 would dive deep into the…you get the idea. I just couldn't wait. Then came August 2004, when the movie was finally released. Critics panned it, but I still wanted to go. After all, as long as the heart was in the same place, that was all that mattered to me. So I sat down in the theater, the only teenager in a crowd of 50…everyone else was over thirty and under ten. Quite possibly the most awkward theater experience that I have ever had… <br /><br />The movie (which is intended to be a prequel) focuses on Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), the youngest of the Tracy family. He spends his days wishing that he could be rescuing people like the rest of his family, but he's too young. One day, he finally gets his chance when The Hood (Ben Kingsley) traps the rest of his family up on Thunderbird 5 (the space station). This involves him having to outsmart The Hood's henchmen and rescue his family in time before The Hood can steal all of the money from the Bank of England.<br /><br />Trust me, the plot sounds like a regular episode of Thunderbirds when you read it on paper. Once it gets put on to film…what a mess we have on our hands. First off, the film was intended for children, much like the original show was. However, Gerry Anderson treated us like adults, and gave us plots that were fairly advanced for children's programming. This on the other hand, dumbs down the plot as it tries to make itself a ripoff of the Spy Kids franchise. The final product is a movie that tries to appeal to fans of the Thunderbirds series and children, while missing both entirely. Lame jokes, cartoonish sounds, and stupid antics that no one really finds amusing are all over this movie, and I'm sure that Jonathan Frakes is wishing he'd never directed this.<br /><br />Over all, everyone gave a solid performance, considering the script that they were all given. Ben Kingsley was exceptional as The Hood, playing the part extremely well. My only complaint about the characters is about The Hood's henchmen, who are reduced to leftovers from old Looney Tunes cartoons, bumbling about as, amazingly enough, the kids take them on with ease.<br /><br />What's odd about this movie is that while I was watching the movie, I had fun. But once the lights went up, I realized that the movie was fairly bad, I was $8 lighter, and two hours of my time were now gone. A guilty pleasure? Perhaps. Nonetheless, Thunderbirds is a forgettable mess. Instead of a big \"go\", I'm going to have to recommend that you stay away from this movie. If the rest of movie could have been like the first ten minutes of it, it would have been an incredible film worthy of the Thunderbirds name. However, we get a movie that only die-hard Thunderbirds fans (if you'd like to watch your childhood torn to pieces) or the extremely bored should bother with.<br /><br />My rating for Thunderbirds is 1 ½ stars." ]

[ "I found this a bit hard to follow to the extent that it seemed to dip in the middle while I tried to make head or tail of who was fighting who and why. One of the problems is the cultural/language one. Here we have a Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese problem of which we know little and because we are simply reading English subtitles inevitably loose some of the subtleties. Another problem is that there seem to be just too many only half explained twists and coincidences. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there is a wholly bad Miiki film and this certainly is not that. Plenty of stylish and bone crunching violence, a window upon some less than orthodox sexual goings on plus the family aspect. All in all a decent ride but maybe checking out the storyline might actually be helpful before watching this one." ]

[ "The same night that I watched this I also watched \"Scary Movie 4,\" making for one messed up double feature. Unfortunately for these killer tomatoes they could not stand up to the laugh riot that is the Scary Movie franchise. While I fought boredom here watching jokes that were silly and stupid, brutally dated and brutally bad, the more recent parody had me laughing out loud. How could I desire any more than that. Director John De Bello uses the basic premise that some sort of growth hormone has gone terribly wrong and turned the tomatoes into killers. But his main objective here is to slap around the disaster movie genre that was so big back in the day. The script reeks of stoner humor, and perhaps if you take illegal substances with your movie nights this could be your cup of tea. I, sober, was stuck watching a grown man go under cover as a tomato. And that one joke, that is never funny, where the discrepancy between the Japanese speaking actor and the voice over is also here. Some may giggle, I did not. They even had a Hitler joke that wasn't funny, and I thought all Hitler jokes were funny.<br /><br />The narrative of this film is so splintered (for no good reason) that it is nearly impossible to explain. Tomatoes kill people, the government tries to stop it, bad jokes are told. Their aim may have been correct as their targets include the media, consumerism, and paranoia (three things that still control our lives today). Oddly enough the main selling point of this film, those gosh darn tomatoes, really don't make much of an appearance. And when they do, get this, they're played by real tomatoes. That washed up gimmick did nothing for me as I get very little out of watching a pack of tomatoes devour a body thanks to the magic of stop action camera tricks. There is also a fear of going for broke at work here that prevents this film from being truly funny. The gag of having somebody fall asleep in nearly every scene may please some audience members, but more than likely it will be seen as an invitation to join in the fun.<br /><br />I might also add that there does seem to be some old fashioned human egotism at work here. Man eats tomato and that's dinner, tomato eats man and that is a worldwide catastrophe. But that is just the way the world works. In the film the produce becomes evil because of genetic modification, but in the real world our produce (see: Taco Bell) becomes evil thanks to neglect. And like those evil doin' green onions this film's shelf life expired a long time ago. There are a few good chuckles to be had. The last shot was really quite splendid, but it was nowhere near enough to save this moderate stink bomb. I'm pretty sure there is a good movie buried deep within this concept, but the script needed to be filtered through about a dozen rewrites to get there. And by \"there\" I mean to the level of \"Scary Movie 4.\" **1/4" ]

[ "One can only imagine the film Mr. Welles might have finished without the interference of the studio! This film is a flawed Welles, but worth every minute of it because one can see the greatness of perhaps America's best motion picture director of all times!<br /><br />We can see the toll it took on Orson Welles the filming of this movie. The story has a lot of holes in it, perhaps because of the demands of the studio executives that didn't trust the director. <br /><br />It is curious by reading some of the opinions submitted to IMDB that compare Orson Welles with the Coen brothers, Roman Polanski, even Woody Allen, when it should be all of those directors that must be regarded as followers of the great master himself. No one was more original and creative in the history of American cinema than Mr. Welles. Lucky are we to still have his legacy either in retrospective looks such as the one the Film Forum in New York just ended, or his films either on tape or DVD form.<br /><br />Rita Hayworth was never more lovingly photographed than here. If she was a beauty with her red hair, as a blonde, she is just too stunning for words. Everett Sloan and Glenn Anders made an excellent contribution to the movie.<br /><br />The only thing that might have made this film another masterpiece to be added to Orson Welles body of work, was his own appearance in it. Had he concentrated in the directing and had another actor interpret Michael O'Hara, a different film might have been achieved altogether. Orson Welles has to be credited for being perhaps a pioneer in taking the camera away from the studio lot into the street. The visuals in this film are so amazing that we leave the theater after seeing this movie truly impressed for the work, the vision and the talent he gave us." ]

[ "While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them: <br /><br />1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.<br /><br />2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.<br /><br />3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.<br /><br />4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.<br /><br />5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.<br /><br />I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible." ]

[ "While I am not a big fan of musicals, I have loved the films of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers because they are just so much fun. Sure, they can be a bit formulaic, but even though you KNOW what is going to happen, they still are very pleasing to watch. However, despite this, I was a bit disappointed in this outing. Part of it was because this film doesn't have the wonderful supporting cast like you saw in TOP HAT or SHALL WE DANCE. Without Edward Everett Horton or Eric Blore, the film seems to be a bit lacking--especially in the \"fun\" department. The silly antics of these supporting actors gave the other films charm that you just don't get with FOLLOW THE FLEET. In addition, unlike the usual character played by Astaire, this one is more of a jerk--as his fat head gets Rogers into trouble again and again. And, as a result, it's a lot harder to like him or want to see them get together in the end of the film. Plus, although the music is by Irving Berlin, the songs just don't seem as memorable. In fact, none of the songs were all that special and I can't recall any of them even though I just saw the movie. While this is still a cute and worthwhile film, it just lacks the sparkle and magic of some of their other films. Good but far from great." ]

[ "I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB. <br /><br />The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.<br /><br />Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?<br /><br />Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.<br /><br />Guy Ritchie, who has built his \"reputation\" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.<br /><br />Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.<br /><br />Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.<br /><br />" ]

[ "I liked Top Gun. It held my interest. Predictable plot, decent character development and story line. It is pretty similar to High Noon in that the town people appear weak and scared to stand up to a villain. This movie has some quality actors who really did not get a chance to share all of their talents. Also some of the actors did not receive credit for their roles. Denver Pyle was a good looking man in his younger days. John Dehner, Rod Taylor are outstanding in their roles. Sterling Hayden did the best that he could with poor material. It is hard to imagine him as a gunslinger. Laura, played by Karen Booth, was a nauseating character. She seemed flattered that two men may have been fighting over her. Ugh. Finally, How can people travel without luggage? Especially women." ]

[ "The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.<br /><br />This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old \"Santa kills\" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights." ]

[ "I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists. <br /><br />Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.<br /><br />On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.<br /><br />I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that." ]

[ "What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some \"hero\" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible." ]

[ "It surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks \"Che: Parts 1 & 2\". Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto \"Che\" Guevara's revolutionary life. \"Che: Part 1\" presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. \"Che: Part 2\" presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2\" focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see \"Che\" in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of \"Che\" was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly \"too much talk and not enough action\" in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing \"Che: Parts 1 &2\". *** Average" ]

[ "I can't believe it, IMDb really does have every TV show known to man! I have not seen this show in over 20 years. I only remember two episodes, and I barely remember those. I remember that Tony may not been on from the start, because one of the episodes I remember is the one in which everybody trying to get Tony to join, but he rejects them, but typically at the end of the show he becomes a member of Power House, with everybody cheering.<br /><br />The other one I remember is the one where Lolo for some reason pretends to be dead,(complete with funeral and mourners). I don't remember why he plays dead, or how the show ends.<br /><br />This is one of those shows that I convinced myself that I must have dreamed up since no one else had ever heard of it." ]

[ "This movie sucked plain and simple. Okay so it's basically about a girl that gets raped, and to get revenge she gets another guy to rape the rapist. The rapist is a douche, but the girl victim is partly to blame. I mean they both get in the mood and start kissing and stuff, but when the rapist tries to have sex with her, she doesn't allow it so the rapist rapes her. And the thing is the rape scene for the girl is very short and it doesn't really expose or show anything, but when it comes to the rapist getting raped, it's a pretty long rape scene. There is basically nothing in the story that is worth watching.<br /><br />3.2/10" ]

[ "It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the \"Garcea\" series or the \"Vacanta mare\" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as \"art\". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie (\"Duminicä la ora sase\") followed by another one, nice enough (\"Reconstituirea\"), tries to declare his film-lenghts \"art works\" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, \"Niki Ardelean\" offers again a sample of \"HOW NOT\" - this being about its only merit." ]

[ "I caught this a few months ago on Family Channel, and having some memories of the TV show from my youth, decided to watch it along with my 4 year old daughter. I should have got some psychedelic mushrooms to go along with it, 'cause this is just bizarre! Not only is it a musical with annoyingly forgettable tunes, the requisite cheesy effects and cameos by stars long past their collective primes, it seems to have been produced as somebody's good acid trip. Talking flutes, British children far too old for this kind of crap... in the words of Krusty the Klown \"uuuuuugggghhhhh! What was I on?\" If you're a huge fan of the whole Sid and Marty Krofft oeuvre, go for it; otherwise, unless you're willing to get looped before watching, stay far, far, FAR away." ]

[ "Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime." ]

[ "The anime that got me hooked on anime...<br /><br />Set in the year 2010 (hey, that's not too far away now!) the Earth is now poison gas wasteland of pollution and violence. Seeing as how crimes are happening ever 30 seconds are so and committed by thieves who have the fire power of third world terrorists, the government of the fictional New Port City form the Tank Police to deal with the problem - cops with tanks! Oh the insanity!<br /><br />The \"heroes\" of this series include the new recruit Leona Ozaki, a red haired Japanese woman (yeah I know, they never match their distinctly Japanese names with a Japanese appearance) who has just been drafted into the Tank Police and is quickly partnered with blond, blue eyed nice guy Al. Leona is new at using tanks and unfortunately she destroys the favorite tank of Tank Police Commander Charles Britain (also known as \"Brenten\"), a big guy who looks like Tom Selleck on steroids and sporting a pair of nifty sunglasses, a big revolver and a bad temper. Britain didn't like having Leona join the Tank Police in the first place and her wrecking his Tiger Special (a giant green monster tank) doesn't exactly endear her to him, nor is he fond of her taking the remains of his giant tank and using it to build a mini-tank that she nicknames Bonaparte and he is soon pushing to have her transferred to child welfare \"where the boys are more your size\" as he puts it. There's also Specs, the bifocal genius, Bible quoting/God fearing Chaplain, purple MO-hawked Mohican, and the pot bellied Chief, who's right on the edge thanks to the Mayor always yelling at him about the Tank Police antics. Seeing as how the tank cops often destroy half the city while chasing the bad guys and use extreme violence to capture them, they're not very well liked by the people.<br /><br />The \"villains\" are a cyborg named Buaku who's got a mysterious past that's connected with a project known as \"Green Peace\", his gang and his two sexy cat cyborg sidekicks Anna & Uni Puma. In the first installment these guys are being paid to steal urine samples from a hospital treating people who haven't been infected by the poison gas clouds and in the 2nd they're hired to steal a painting that is of a naked Buaku. The story, however, was uncompleted in the anime and was finished up in a cult comic (\"Manga\") book that's very hard to find.<br /><br />All sorts of chaos and mayhem ensue in this black comic venture that examines how far people want their police to go in order to catch criminals and what happens when the fine line between good guys and bad guys starts to get blurred. This is the kind of thing that if you were going to make a movie of it, you'd better go get Quentin Tarantino. Uneven in places but still a lot of fun.<br /><br />Followed by \"New Dominion: Tank Police\"." ]

[ "I was true to my regard for Mr. Glover and Ms. Goldberg. I watched the entire film with my family and some friends. I have no idea what the movie was about. After much discussion, we all agreed that this was not one of their better efforts.<br /><br />It doesn't hang together very well. It is too choppy, and there is little comedy. I am disappointed. It could have been much better.<br /><br />I waited months to see this film based on the liner notes.<br /><br />Don't waste your money unless you are a completist and just want to see all of Mr. Glover's and Ms. Goldberg's films.<br /><br />It was a poor way to spend an evening." ]

[ "This movie really deserves the MST3K treatment. A pseudo-ancient fantasy hack-n-slash tale featuring twin barbarian brothers with a collective IQ of hot water, character names that seem to have been derived from a Mad Libs book, and such classic lines as \"Hold her down and uncover her belly!\", The Barbarians crosses over into the \"so bad, it's good\" territory." ]

[ "To finally see what many consider to be the greatest women-in-prison film of all time, I felt like I had accomplished something as ridiculous as that sounds. Boy, it sure contained the elements I expected, and delivered so much more. A constant I'm discovering in these films is the toughness and grit of the actresses in the roles of prisoners preparing for escape while their threshold, tolerance, and resolve(..not to mention sanity)being tested by their superiors. While most of them were hired for the way they look naked, because the nature of the genre demands such gratuitous elements, something else emerges, other attributes, such as attitude and guts, that I ultimately respond to.<br /><br />This, as you may know all too well, was Demme's debut for his mentor Roger Corman, and he provides the target audience with exactly what they desire while putting his own stamp on the proceedings. For instance, there are bizarre dreams certain characters have which define their current psychological states(..there's a particular number featuring warden Barbara Steele where she reminded me of Alex de Large of A Clockwork Orange).<br /><br />The film has female prisoners planning a daring escape, tired of the crazed antics of their wheel-chair bound warden and her nutty prison doc, Randolph(Warren Miller). Juanita Brown is Maggie, the tough, sassy sister who is fed up with the environment and will do whatever it takes to get out. She's the one all the girls fear to cross. Erica Gavin is Jacqueline Wilson, the newest prisoner who was busted by police and sentenced for the murder of a cop, unwilling to give up the names of those she was involved with. Roberta Collins is Belle, a serial kleptomaniac, best pals with Pandora(Ella Reid). Belle becomes the obsession of Randolph who promises Superintendent McQueen(Steele)that through a surgical procedure he can remove her violent tendencies. Drugging her up, Randolph takes nude pictures and sodomizes her, whimpering like a little girl due to his own mental deficiencies while hugging her naked body in his arms. Cheryl Rainbeaux Smith is Lavelle, in prison for life for murdering a scumbag whose relative was a Senator. Lavelle receives work in Randolph's office and is the one responsible for relating his dirty antics to Pandora. Demme effectively builds the movie to the expected finale as a planned break-out, using those behind the various traumas inflicted on the prisoners as hostages, with gunfire erupting.<br /><br />I was quite impressed with the photographic work of long time Demme collaborator, cinematographer Tak Fujimoto, as he is able to establish some visually arresting moments within the cramped confines of the prison, cells and rooms, not an easy task. The prison is appropriately crummy and the girls, despite being quite attractive, look the part of desperate inmates longing, yearning from the very pits of their souls, to escape such horrid entrapment. Steele is superb as the warden, understanding how to take the role close to the brink without going to far, candidly able to express the madness of her repressed character within a restraint..notice how she works her glasses and settles herself without blowing her top particularly when certain behaviors she has contempt for push her teetering to the edge. Cale's bluesy score is incredibly depressing, while also casting a wink to the audience that the movie is still fun-and-games..I think Cale's score mirrors Demme's handling of the material. Cale and Demme's partnership is an uncanny alliance that presents the setting as a sad, isolating, oppressive place, while, almost simultaneously, showcasing a humorous tone that permeates due to the colorful characters thanks in part to the personalities of the cast. My favorite scene happens outside the prison, as two of our girls(..joining forces with a third)interrupt a bank robbery already in progress..the kicker is it was a bank they were planning to rob! As you might expect, you get naked women in showers, prisoner in solitary, a cat fight, shootouts, attempted escapes which go awry, and other exploitative elements(..such as a horrifying shock therapy session, not to exclude the shocking aforementioned sequence where the screwy doc takes advantage of Belle). Interesting enough, Demme relates the film to the audience without a whiff of pretension, understanding exactly the kind of movie he was making." ]

[ "In an era of such awful cartoons, I am rather in shock to see a movie with such good morals make it to the IMDB Bottom List for Animated movies.<br /><br />This movie does contradict the first. I won't deny that. However, when I was in the target age group for this movie, I didn't even notice, nor would it have mattered if I did. The people who made it may have used \"New Generation\" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began. Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.<br /><br />This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all.<br /><br />" ]

[ "I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a \"submarine\" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it." ]

[ "Being that I am not a fan of Snoop Dogg, as an actor, that made me even more anxious to check out this flick. I remember he was interviewed on \"Jay Leno,\" and said that he turned down a role in the big-budget Adam Sandler comedy \"The Longest Yard\" to be in this film. So obviously, Snoop was on a serious mission to prove that he has acting chops. I'm not going to overpraise Snoop for his performance in \"The Tenants.\" There are certainly better rapper/actors, like Mos Def, who could've done more with his role. But the point is Snoop did a \"good\" job. He can't seem to shake off some of his trademark body movements and vocal inflections, but that's something even Jack Nicholson has a problem doing. The point is I found him convincing in the role, and the tension between him and Dylan McDermott's character captivating. McDermott, by the way, gives the best performance in the film, though his subtle acting will most likely be overshadowed by Snoop's not-so-subtle acting. Being a big reader and aspiring writer myself, I couldn't help but find the characters and plot somewhat fascinating. It did aggravate me how Snoop's character would constantly ask McDermott to read his work, and berate him for criticizing it. But you know what? I'm sure a lot of writers are like that. His character was supposed to be flawed, as was McDermott's, in his own way. My only mild criticism of the film would be its ending. For some reason, it just felt too rushed for me, though the resolution certainly made sense and was motivated by the characters, rather than plot." ]

[ "A very cheesy and dull road movie, with the intention to be hip and modern, shown in the editing style and some weird camera angles, resulting only in sleepiness. <br /><br />The cast is wasted, the writing is stupid and pretentious. The only thing worthwhile is the top-notch Lalo Schifrin's soundtrack, really cool and also the opening sequence, very original and interesting. <br /><br />Run if you can, the bad opinions and comments about this flick are totally deserved; it is really pure garbage. Of course that this has its charm, of watching a movie which everybody would not drop the beer glass on if it were on fire, but save it for a stormy day where you have absolutely nothing else to do." ]

[ "Reading all of the comments Are very exciting. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would also like to tell him \"job well done\". I know this Sight is for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also touched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to have some of his work displayed in my home." ]

[ "I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, \"Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!\"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, \"What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!\"" ]

[ "I reflect back to the days when I held my boyfriends hat to smell him into existence in my time alone when I was 16. The little moments of this film are so accurate and right on pace with what is going on in the minds and hearts of young girls during those coming of age teenage years. Now at my age I want to preach to them about their decisions and how life during those times are not as important as it all seems in those moments. That if they can be patient in their youth and wait to experience the hardships of life both external and internal that life would be so much sweeter. But then again young people today are faced with some variables that I never had to deal with a youth. <br /><br />The three main characters well played by all three actors (Kerry Wahington - Lanisha, Anna Simpson - Joycelyn and Melissa Martinez- Maria) give us the very believable depiction of a piece of reality for young girls living in impoverished situations. They have impoverished family lives all being raised by single mothers with expectation of Lanisha whose father is present but not actively supporting her day to day. The have impoverished educational systems and lack direct contact with achieving role models. These situations powerfully affect them and is their reality but all this is of no great depressive concern to these young women in their day to day. They except their plight and focus on the same things young girls all over the world are concerned with. Finding true love in a male, having good friends that you can depend on, gaining some respect/love and responsibility from parents and enjoying life. This is were this film cross the race, age and gender gap imposed upon it by its characters and the setting in which it is stamped. <br /><br />The Director and writer McKay explains on the DVD how each of scenes got into his head, by just observing young people of that age that lived in those types of neighborhoods. Plus you add three up and coming actresses who are not so far removed from that time in their own lives that you get a real good synergy of reality and acting at its best. The one thing I know about (African Americans and Hispanics) is that there is always a spiritual family member or neighbor that is in the foreground or near ground believing in a better day and better life and future in spite of the present situation and is role modeling that to some extent. This was never touched in the movie in order not to preach and I understand that but it also narrows the culture to having no hope in anything other than themselves. <br /><br />The HOPE FACTOR: I now think about my future and where I have come from and say as Lanisha did ` Today is a good day.' Yes poverty still exists, racism, sexism, and any other ism that we can added. Yes some of each of these young girls actions perpetuate the isms and are self-destructive, everything around them is impoverished but NONE of those actions past or neither present nor their environment leaves them without hope for a bright future. I was left with saddened hope of each of the characters and a deeper desire to be a role model in the life of some young girl on the edge of making a destructive decision. I suppose that is the value of film it should not only entertain but cause each of us to think, reflect and then act in some positive way to make this world a better place.<br /><br />" ]

[ "This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.<br /><br />So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong." ]

[ "Ronald Colman gives an electrifying performance as Tony John, a Broadway actor who can't separate his offstage life from Shakespeare's Othello, the character he plays on stage....Two important scenes illustrate Tony's dilemma. The first one takes place in producer Max Lasker's office. Acting is a matter of talent for the practical-minded Lasker. But Donlan, Tony's friend, disagrees: \"No, no. When you do it like Tony does it, it's much more. The way he has of becoming someone else every night...so completely. No, don't tell me his whole system isn't affected by it.\"....The other scene occurs in waitress Pat Kroll's apartment. Tony tells her his name is Martin. She thanks him. Then he says: \"Or Paul. Hamlet. Joe. And maybe Othello.\"....When Tony begins rehearsing Othello, we learn that though he's trying to keep his real life separated from his stage life, \"The part begins to seep into your life, and the battle begins. Reality against imagination.\" He can't keep the two separated: In his mind Pat is Desdemona and he's Othello, and he wrongly believes she has been unfaithful to him. He murders her....Colman's bravura performance, in a complex and difficult role, earned him 1947's Academy Award for Best Actor. Oscar nominations went to Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin for Best Original Screenplay. Not to be overlooked is Milton Krasner's atomspheric cinematography." ]

[ "Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.<br /><br />This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it. <br /><br />Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.<br /><br />Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.<br /><br />Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children." ]

[ "I finally saw this film tonight after renting it at Blockbuster (VHS). I have to agree that it is wildly original. Yes, maybe the characters were not fully realized but it isn't one of those movies. Rather, we are treated to the director's eye, his vision of what the story is about. And it does not stop. And to be honest, I didn't want it to. I do believe that Sabu had to have influenced the director's of 'Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Run, Lola, Run'. But I absolutely loved the way the three leads SEE the beautiful woman on the street to distract them momentarily. I really need to see this director's other work because this film really intrigued me. If you want insight, culture, sturm und drang, go somewhere else. If you want a laugh, camera movement and criminal hilarity, look here." ]

[ "This movie is amazing. The plot was just...wow.<br /><br />I was very surprised by Gackt's and Hyde's performance, after growing up in the American world of the actors who can't sing and singers who can't act.<br /><br />In this movie, a young Sho (Gackt) comes across a vampire, Kei (Hyde). Over time, they form an unlikely friendship. Kei is suffering because of how he is forced to live off others, the half-life of a vampire.<br /><br />It's a sad movie, but not sappy. The plot was very unique, and contrary to your typical vampire flick. The storyline was thick with twists and turns and very entrancing.<br /><br />The only fault I would say the movie had, despite it's lack of a happy--albeit peaceful—ending, would be it's multiple languages. I had the unsubdued version (I'm lucky that I understood it all save some of the Cantonese), so I would recommend getting something with subtitles.<br /><br />All in all, the movie was just awesome." ]

[ "For your own good, it would be best to disregard any positive reviews concerning this movie. This flick STINKS. Now, I like (at least in theory) low budget horror movies, but this one makes the worst mistake a low budget flick can make: It takes itself WAY too seriously. And, unfortunately, that's not it's only problem.<br /><br />It's the story of the murderous Beane clan of the British Ilses transposed to modern times. An interesting premise, but there are two things that are immediately perplexing about this film once you start watching it.<br /><br />#1- Why is the biggest name on the CD box Jenna Jameson? She's a below average looking woman who can't act, and she has a minor role. ANSWER: She's apparently a well known porn star (as you no doubt read in other reviews), so I guess this is a \"cameo\" appearance for her. She's giving the film much needed \"name recognition\", it seems. Her top billing isn't any indication of her talent, though, it's an indication of how UNtalented the rest of the cast is.<br /><br />#2- How can film makers be so stupid to think Canada can be passed off as Ireland? It doesn't even remotely look like Ireland. And the house that the guests/victims stay in is this great big North American wood frame Edwardian thing. They should have skipped the whole Beane theme and developed a story that took place in N.A. Also, if you're going to make a movie that takes place in Ireland, it's probably best to have more than one character with an Irish accent (and that was a REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD Irish accent.) Now,this wouldn't have been so bad if the director wasn't trying to make the next \"Night of the Living Dead\", but it seems he was. Too bad. He could have had some fun with it. In fact, some of the scenes weren't far from being unintentionally comedic as they were.<br /><br />Like the infamous gutting scene, were the woman is chained to the table, stripped naked, and then sliced open and eviscerated. That's funny, you ask? Well, in the deleted scene version, the mutant killer pulls out mile after mile after mile of intestines. It's actually funny after awhile. And what self respecting cannibal eats intestines, anyway? Do we eat the intestines of cows and chickens? Heck no, we eat hams and ribs and drumsticks. Oh well.<br /><br />Some of the other cast who were annoying: the whiny, creepy Howard Rosenstein. I'm not sure, but I THINK he was supposed to be cast as a STUD. In fact, he's as big a loser and goof ball as his name would imply. Which would explain why the character played by the equally annoying Gillian Leigh fell for him.<br /><br />I checked Gillian Leigh on her link on IMDb, and apparently it's important to know that she graduated high school with honors. I can't decide if it's more amusing or pathetic to know that only a couple years after graduation, the honor student is doing nude soft-core porn scenes in a shower with a guy named Howard Rosenstein. Wonder if her former classmates have seen this movie? If they have, hopefully they'll get the message: AVOID THIS FATE! GO TO COLLEGE!!! I could go on and on, but why. If you like gore, you'll find something redeeming in this flick, but not much more." ]

[ "Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die is directed by Bradford May, the same guy who made the first Darkman sequel too. Darkman 3 is worse than Darkman 2, and is nothing special, in my opinion. Larry Drake is no more as a main villain, who is now played by great Jeff Fahey, whose character once again wants to get Darkman's work and create this time some ultra strong humans in order to get the leadership of the whole city. The film is pretty much the same in plot and execution as Darkman 2, but I was mostly irritated by the presence of many scenes from Darkman 2. These sequels were made in short time and with little money, so these kind of decisions had to be made. Couple of scenes are pretty stylish and exiting, but still this is pretty tired film and often irritatingly stupid, too. The characters scream and laugh too much and it is very annoying. There is no any philosophical depth in the film, and this is like a remake of Darkman 2 which it still cannot equal. Darkman 2 had many great scenes and stylish camera work, and Larry Drake's ability to play great villain. Darkman 3 offers only some nice scenes and moments, but mostly this film is tired and full of cliches. The few positive things in this movie are flashback edits (Westlake's nightmares) and couple of truly surprising plot turns and tricks. And worth mentioning is also pretty nasty death scene of the main villain which was pretty comic book like and inventive without any gore. Far more interesting than the death of main villain in part two. <br /><br />Darkman 3 is worst in the whole series, and we must remember that these two sequels were made directly to video and they don't come even close to Raimi's original Darkman with Liam Neeson. Darkman 2 was okay actioner with plenty of great scenes and suspense, but this last (?) entry is tired and often stupid and boring piece of sequel. It has some merits as mentioned, but overall feeling is that this should not been made in the first place. May is talented director so hopefully he can get some more noteworthy projects in the future.<br /><br />3/10" ]

[ "I rank this the best of the Zorro chapterplays.The exciting musical score adds punch to an exciting screen play.There is an excellent supporting cast and mystery villain that will keep you guessing until the final chapter.Reed Hadley does a fine job as Don Diego and his alter ego Zorro.Last,but certainly not least,is the great directing team of Whitney and English." ]

[ "Before Cujo,there was Lucky the devil dog. In 1978,on Halloween night the movie\"Devil Dog,The Hound of Hell\" premiered. A story of a family getting a new puppy (from a farmer who just happen to be in the neighborhood selling fruits and vegetables) because their dog Skipper was killed.Coencidence? Everyone loves the new dog,but there is something strange about him. <br /><br />It isn't long until the father Mike Barry(Richard Crenna,First Blood)starts to notice.His wife Betty(Yvette Mimieux,Where The Boys Are,Jackson County Jail,Snowbeast)is different and his kids Charlie and Bonnie(Ike Eisenman,Witch Mountain and Fantastic Vourage and Kim Richards,Witch Mountain,Nanny and the Professor,Hello Larry,Tuff-Turf)also have changed. Does the dog have something to do with it? He's determined to find out and do whatever it takes to save his family.<br /><br />This movie is great because it has Ike and Kim playing a darker side of themselves than what we saw on those witch mountain movies. This is one of the many 70's made-for-TV horror movies that was actually scary for a made-for-TV horror movie. The music was creepy and even the ending which I won't tell made you think.<br /><br />This movie also stars Ken Kercheval(Cliff Barnes of Dallas)and R.G. Armstrong(who couldn't stay away from devil movies remember\"Race with the Devil\"?)<br /><br />It's worth watching." ]

[ "I've seen a great many films, but 'In Cold Blood' stands alone in a class by itself. It excels in every department. The fact that it contained few big stars helps push it over the top as you pay closer attention to the characters and their story, rather than the name on the marquee. Blake and Wilson turn in stellar performances of the killer duo. The fact that much of the films is filmed in the actual locations where the crime took place, even inside the very house, add additional chills. The black/white photography darkens the mood and the photography is magnificent. There are many outstanding cinematic works out there, but if I could only vote for one to top the list, it would most probably be \"In Cold Blood\"." ]

[ "For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were \"free agents\"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid \"hangers on\" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the \"B unit\" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents." ]

[ "I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science." ]

[ "But the fun is in the journey.<br /><br />I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.<br /><br />Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.<br /><br />The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.<br /><br />Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry..." ]

[ "Being S Club Seven, the film already boosts an ecstatic atmosphere! But seriously, Oprah has a point when claiming: \"Don't go there, girl!\" Spice World suddenly doesn't seem to be all that bad... I take my money elsewhere!" ]

[ "You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.<br /><br />There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. <br /><br />That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the \"through the fish bowl\" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab" ]

[ "To be brutally honest... I LOVED watching Severed. That's why I<br /><br />gave it a 1/10 stars because of its starkly unimaginative<br /><br />story/filming/acting/everything. This film was a RIOT to watch. If<br /><br />you enjoy watching bad films in order to poke fun at them, you will<br /><br />really get a kick out of Severed.<br /><br />The story really doesn't matter, it involves some guy who's bald<br /><br />and has a sword and goes around beheading random people. <br /><br />But he has a supernatural twist... nobody ever sees him do it. <br /><br />Even when, in one very memorable scene, he walks into a<br /><br />jampacked night club and whacks off some girl's noodle and<br /><br />nobody sees it. <br /><br />Severed doesn't merely look like it was filmed on video- it WAS<br /><br />filmed on someone's home camcorder. The filmmakers had<br /><br />knowledge of lighting (very thin knowledge) and composition<br /><br />actually holds together in some scenes. But mostly you can't hear<br /><br />the actors... you can't understand what they're doing, and you laugh<br /><br />when the next vicitm gets his pumpkin detatched from his body.<br /><br />Go and rent this movie. Support films like this- they are a hoot and<br /><br />a hollar!" ]

[ "Due to reading bad reviews and being told by friends that they couldn't believe how bad it was, I didn't go and see this film at the cinema. After watching it on DVD, I have to say I regret that now. I'm not saying it is brilliant, but I would venture to say that it is a good movie. I enjoyed it.<br /><br />People have skulls thicker than Ned's helmet if they go to see a movie like this and expect it to be a documentary. If you read up the actual history behind most movies based on historical figures, there is usually a huge difference between the fact and the fictional portrayal. I don't think Ganghis Kahn has ever once been portrayed even remotely close to historical fact. What kind of man Ned Kelly actually was is a matter of debate, and quite passionate it seems. In spite of the efforts of governments and some historians, Ned Kelly has become a legend. Legends are stories, and stories say as much about those who tell and listen to them as they do about the actual figure himself. Ned Kelly has become such a popular identity because he does represent that aspect of Australian culture that doesn't trust or accept authority. A society in which there is no dissent or challenge to authority is crazier and more dangerous than any bushranger.<br /><br />So not expecting this to be an accurate recreation of the historical Kelly gang, I actually found it a surprisingly unencumbered and refreshing movie. It was sentimental and romantic, but thankfully not anywhere as cheesy as it could have been; for my fellow Australians, watch 'The Lighthorseman' and you will see what I mean (it is a pity the way that story was treated so poorly). Perhaps the love affair business could have been forsaken for a bit more detail in other areas, such as the shooting of the troopers. Ironically, I actually enjoyed the movie because of that, because it would be those details that most of the focus on Ned's story would dwell. And they are the details of the story that are best discovered by reading the different viewpoints given by the various historians.<br /><br />This movie was always going to have a hard time, having make a compromise of appealing to a global movie market (to pay the pills) and the legend as it means to Australians; perhaps a little of Ned's spirit is in this movie, because I think it rebelled against people's expectations, and unfortunately missed both targets. Fortunately it made for an enjoyable quirk of a film. For me it was an unexpected kind of movie about Ned, and that is why I liked it. Orlando Bloom's performance did a lot for the movie too - he really added something. I think he would have enjoyed being the monster instead of the pretty elf, for a change.<br /><br />When you consider some other movies that are far worse than this one, your opinion of this movie should be reconsidered. Send me this on DVD for christmas rather than Croc Dundee or The Man From Snowy River anytime." ]

[ "I managed to see this at the New York International Film Festival in November 2005 with my boyfriend. We were both quite impressed with the complexity of the plot and found it to be emotionally moving. It was very well directed with strong imagery. The visual effects were amazing - especially for a short. It had an original fantasy approach to a very real and serious topic: This film is about a young girl who is visited by a demon offering to help her situation with her abusive father. There is also a surprise twist at the end which caught me off guard. This leans towards the Gothic feel. I would love to see this as a full feature film. -- Carrie" ]

[ "This movie is proof that film noire is an enduring style, and extremely worthy of stay alive. For me, it is he best example of film noire since Chinatown.<br /><br />It will, unfortunately, never get the recognition it deserves. It was never promoted properly when it was first released and has had to build its cadre of fans through venues like Vanguard Cinema and word of mouth rental referrals.<br /><br />I highly recommend that people looking for something more than mindless entertainment rent this movie and delved into its highly convoluted plot." ]

[ "I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.<br /><br />At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).<br /><br />So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.<br /><br />I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.<br /><br />None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all. <br /><br />The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.<br /><br />I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better. <br /><br />I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.<br /><br />3/10" ]

[ "This is one of the best military films ever made. And it is great because of its focus on values. It's a great human interest story that turns on a commitment to honor, loyalty, love, and determination.<br /><br />Gooding and DeNiro are superb in the lead roles. It's wonderful to see the Master Chief's racism evolve toward respect and love through Carl Brashear's determination, drive,and yes, sense of honor. The title indicates the source of their bond. I never noticed until this last time watching it how brilliant Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Carl's father, Mac Brashear, was. In a way, it's a cornerstone of the film in that it's Carl's memory of his father that helps carry him through hard times.<br /><br />I am selective about what films I purchase. This is one of those rare ones that I want on my shelf. It will be seen many times in the future, I'm sure." ]

[ "Even though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces. <br /><br />To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours." ]

[ "Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it..." ]

[ "I couldn't believe my eyes once I've watched this movie. There's no point in it either then blood and violence. Unlike other scary movies that had gore and a meaning to it this movie is just blood, gore, and killing one after another. This movie isn't interesting at all, has no meaningful plot or story line, nor does it have an intelligence in it. The blood looks very fake and this movie overall, is pointless. Don't even waste your time with it. It's just an hour or two of mindless violence. It has many bloody scenes that aren't scary but just plain revolting. This is probably the worst horror film I have ever watched out of all the horror films I ever saw." ]

[ "While a 9 might seem like an unusually high score for such a slight film, however, compared to the hundreds and hundreds of series detective films from the 1930s and 40s, this is among the very best and also compares very favorably to Powell's later \"Thin Man\" films. Now this does NOT mean that the film is that similar to the Thin Man movies, as THE KENNEL MURDER CASE is not a comedy but more a traditional mystery-detective film. Now you'd think that not having Nora Charles or Asta or a traditional comic sidekick (something found in practically all series detective films) along for fun would be a detriment, but I didn't miss them at all because this was such an exceptionally well-written film--having a genuinely interesting case as well as uniformly excellent performances by all.<br /><br />The film begins at the dog show and is called The KENNEL Murder Case, though this Philo Vance film actually spends little of the time at the dog show and dogs are not a super-important part of the film. Instead, a thoroughly hated man is killed and left in a completely sealed room--an idea repeated in quite a few other detective films (such as CRIME DOCTOR'S STRANGEST CASE). However, how all this is explained seems pretty credible and fit together very well--keeping my interest throughout. I sure wish other detective films of the day had as intelligently written plots and exceptional acting as this one. This one is definitely a keeper." ]

[ "Many people have commented that this movie was nowhere near as good as the first. Well, maybe it isn't - to you. However, how does your child react to it? Well, mine loved it more than the first.<br /><br />Disney movies of the past can sometimes be a little harsh for little kids. (For example - Bambi's mother getting shot.) This movie was really great for my sensitive little girl who likes humor and happy endings.<br /><br />If you want to be snobby about what should be Disney's standards based on the past - skip this movie. <br /><br />If you have a sweet little girl or soft-hearted little boy you really want to please, buy this movie and treat your small children. This film is great as a bedtime movie for happy dreams instead of nightmares. I'm happy with a movie that pleases my kid & doesn't need to impress the parents all the time." ]

[ "This delectable fusion of New Age babble and luridly bad film-making may not \"open\" you up, to borrow one of the film's favorite verbs, but it might leave your jaw slack and your belly sore from laughter or retching. Based on the best-selling book by James Redfield, first (self) published in 1993, this cornucopia of kitsch tracks the spiritual awakening of an American history teacher (Matthew Settle) who, on traveling to deepest, darkest, phoniest Peru and sniffing either the air or something else more illegal. Namely what he discovers is a schlock Shangri La populated by smiling zombies who may be nuts or just heavily medicated, perhaps because they're often accompanied by a panpipe flourish and an occasional shout out from a celestial choir. Although there's a lot of talk about \"energy,\" that quality is decidedly missing from the motley cast whose numbers include Thomas Kretschmann, Annabeth Gish, Hector Elizondo and Jurgen Prochnow, all of whom are now firmly ensconced in the camp pantheon. For those who care, the plot involves the military, terrorists and the Roman Catholic Church; Armand Mastroianni provided the inept direction while Mr. Redfield, Barnet Bain and Dan Gordon wrote the hoot of a script. In short, easily the worst film seen in 40+ years of viewing movies." ]

[ "Someone should tell Goldie Hawn that her career as a teen-age gamin ended thirty years ago. <br /><br />This is one of the worst films released in years, an unequivocal disaster in which the two leads give themselves over to a frenetic exposition of their trademark tics in an effort to make up for a bad script and bad directing. This thing should have been smothered at birth.<br /><br />I hope John Cleese got paid a lot for having his name attached to this disaster. He is the only performer who came through this stinking mess more or less unscathed, his only fault being a failure to realize that the rest of the cast would sink the picture." ]

[ "This is the first Tom Hanks movie I have gotten the privilege of seeing in the theater, although he is my favorite. When I heard he was going to play a hit-man, I was a little stunned thinking \"can Mr. Hanks pull this one off\"? And he did in high fashion. This 1930's depression era film is a about loyalty, redemption, and one path that you don't want your children stumbling down. Tom Hanks leads a stellar cast as Michael Sullivan. Being the family man, and the secret life of the contract killer for the Oscar nominated Paul Newman. This movie Tom Hanks relies more on reaction and gaze rather than dialogue, which he delivers a knockout performance.<br /><br />On one night of one of his jobs, Michael's son Michael Jr., played by newcomer Tyler Hoechlin, witnesses the hit. And Michael Sr.'s partner in crime, fellow stage actor Daniel Craig can't have that information out. So he wacks out the son and wife of Michael Sr., except Michael Jr. So the two head for Chicago to get Conner Rooney(son of Paul Newman's Mr. Rooney).<br /><br />The drama and intense plot really thickens from their as father trys to set things right, even though son is along for the ride. While on this deadly journey, someone has hired a hit for Michael Sr. The assassin would be the photographer of the deceased Harlen Maguire, played by a stain-teethed Jude Law.<br /><br />The movie will have you feeling the old days. And with Thomas Newman's beautiful and haunting Oscar nominated score to go along with it, you can't help but appreciate this film from Oscar winning director Sam Mendes. So sit back, and enjoy the wild ride." ]

[ "When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with \"The Wedding Banquet\" and \"Eat Drink Man Woman\" a few years ago and then moved on to \"Sense and Sensibility\" and \"The Ice Storm\". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.<br /><br />This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called \"bushwhackers\", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.<br /><br />The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider \"Jewel\" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.<br /><br />Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.<br /><br />Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.<br /><br />Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the \"southern gentleman\" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.<br /><br />While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's \"great\" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.<br /><br />Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.<br /><br />" ]

[ "Steve Biko was a black activist who tried to resist the white minority governed South Africa in much the same way as Gandhi tried to resist the British empire's colonialism in India. Richard Attenborough's film Cry Freedom is not about Biko or Apartheid as much as it is about Donald Woods, the white liberal newspaper editor who risked his life trying to tell Biko's story. The film has a jarring point of view switch after Biko dies in prison from tortuous behavior at the hands of South African \"police\". Woods, played by Kevin Kline, must choose whether to do the right thing and flee the country to publish books about Biko or allow his wife, played by Penelope Wilton, to pressure him into forgetting about the books. In that case, Biko dies in vain. What begins as a life-changing friendship between Biko and Woods degenerates into a standard by the numbers escape over the border yarn after Biko's death. Oscar-nominated Denzel Washington is good in only his fourth film as Biko, but something is wrong in a film that tries to depict the struggles of Apartheid by focusing more on the trials of a white family for more than half the film. Attenborough would have served his topic better by focusing on Biko's rise to prominence instead of beginning where Biko befriended Woods. Perhaps a black actor in a leading role in a 2 1/2 hour film wasn't exactly conducive to big box office, but the film was a tremendous box office flop anyway. Film politics aside, the film still entertains and sends a message or two, albeit, in PG-sanitized fashion. *** of 4 stars." ]

[ "This is a great movie for the true romantics and sports lovers alike.<br /><br />Drew Barrymore is at her best in this movie. As a Drew fan it was quite nice to see her shine after having several flops. I had my doubts about Jimmy Fallon but he totally delivered as Ben the comical, sports crazed sweetheart. The comedy in this movie is great, there were several laugh out loud moments.<br /><br />Their first date started rocky when he showed up at her apartment with flowers and she was sick to her stomach from eating a new place earlier in the day. Instead of leaving he helps take care of her, helping her change into pajama's then cleaning up the puke on her toilet and bathroom later telling her that she was 'very lady-like...no chunks.' Everything goes great between Ben and Lindsay the whole winter but then baseball season starts. Lindsay starts to realize just how obsessed Ben is with the Red Sox and why this seemingly great guy is still single. She tries to shrug it off and think of it as a good thing as she has a busy work schedule and she wont feel guilty for working extra hours while he is at games. She even buys all the books on The Red Sox she can find including one on 'The curse of Bambino'.<br /><br />Everything is going pretty well until Lindsay has a false alarm having missed her period. It both makes them both realize how serious they are getting and she begins to question if this is the person she wants to be with. A very touching part in the movie is after she tells him she got her period it shows him sadly putting away a baby sized Red Sox jersey he had bought just in case she was pregnant.<br /><br />Eventually Ben tries to show her how important she is and decides to go to her friends birthday Party after she said \"I had to check my calender and when I saw the there was a Red Sox/Yankee game I knew I would be going stag'. After the party Ben tells her it was 'the best night of his life'. Shortly after he gets a call from his pal who went to the game he gave up for the party and told him \"IT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER!!!\" Ben freaks out about missing it and ends up really hurting Lindsay when she says \"A few minutes ago you were saying this was the best night of your life\" he says \"well that was a few minutes ago.\"<br /><br />So they separate for a while, he realizes how immature his obsession is and decides to sell his season tickets which he inherited from his uncle because if he didn't it would 'remind him too much of what he gave up for them'. Lindsay finds out through a friend and decides to stop him realizing he is doing it for her. It ends very sweetly showing how his childhood love for baseball has been over shadowed for a whole new deeper love, Lindsay. They still go to the games and even attend the final World Series game and St. Louis and it is a happy ending all around. 2 thumbs up!!" ]

[ "Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.<br /><br />Robi Chernitsky" ]

[ "Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare." ]

[ "We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide \"Infomercials\" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.<br /><br />No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.<br /><br />So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty." ]

[ "Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after \"The Night Strangler\". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding \"Night\", with understandably less success.<br /><br />Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are \"Dark Shadows\" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires! <br /><br />**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox" ]

[ "According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...<br /><br />It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.<br /><br />The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...<br /><br />The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.<br /><br />The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.<br /><br />The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... \"blah\" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.<br /><br />My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?<br /><br />One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese \"geisha-fashion\". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!" ]

[ "Serge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue \"The Rwandese night\" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)<br /><br />A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.<br /><br />The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.<br /><br />By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.<br /><br />But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation." ]

[ "This is a strong movie from a historical and epic perspective. While the story is simple it is pure and straightforward. In truth, it is the standard story of a simple, honorable man whose honor comes into conflict with the more educated and wealthier men of the period.<br /><br />Poor vs. Rich, honorable vs. dishonorable, a classic but well-told tale without much of the glitz of hollywood stinking up the screen.<br /><br />Extra points just because you can almost smell the people on the screen. :)" ]

[ "This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.<br /><br />The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including \"furniture\"--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed! <br /><br />Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound." ]